Quote:
Originally Posted by Hootie
And players 40+ were doing as well as they were when they were 30...that was the biggest bullshit article I've ever read.
If you think Lee, Soriano, Ramirez and Fukodome are just going to suddenly suck in a year or two you are downright reeruned.
Players of that caliber don't forget how to play baseball all of the sudden...
|
Ok, I'm going to go slow, since your education horribly failed you.
1) You have a complete inability to grasp the content of any of the posts in these threads. You vacillate from extremes like the "Oh Noes" "We're Doomed" .gif.
Example: I say Soriano was a second baseman.
Result: You go off on an off-base harangue about how he played left in Washington, and because of this fact, I don't know what I'm talking about despite the fact that I a) Never said he played second in Washington, and b)he broke into the bigs as a second baseman..
Furthermore, I mention that player's primes are from 27-32. You say they are from 30-35. I show you a statistical analysis to prove my point, and you call the guy a homo and say it's not valid because he scaled the at bats to 600.
I hate to point this out to you, but he scaled them to 600 so that you could have an accurate predictor per age-per person. .OPS and average numbers do not change with at bats, since they are--gasp--averages. Even if someone went on a tear from at bat 600-650, someone else would have done so from 550-600. He has 1000 individual samples, it's not like he took three players and extrapolated his thoughts from them.
Now...back to your idiocy. I say a player's prime ends at 32, and you some how extrapolate this to mean that once they are 33 they aren't even replacement-level players. You truly are a dumb motherfucker. There's a reason why they call them
decline years and not "goes back to the International League" years. Yes, they are still productive players, but they aren't what they once were. Yes, you will have statistical anomalies, but banking on a statistical anamoly to help you win is how guys like JP Ricciardi get the reputation that they do.
Once again,
I would like you to explain to me why 87/100 of the top 100 home run hitters of the last decade hit their homer peak before age 33, and why that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
Moving on, I say that second baseman have the weakest arms of position players in baseball and you tell me I'm full of shit that they have laser rocket arms, when it is well established that they don't. In fact, the only piece of support (from a blog) that you could drag up was in relation to the hitting power of a second baseman, rather than their throwing arm.
You seem to think that because I say they have weak arms that means that one of us can throw harder.
You're a dipshit. Jamie Moyer is a soft-tossing pitcher, but...gasp...it doesn't mean that some guy off the street can throw 84. The same goes with Trevor Hoffman. But your infantile ass seems wholly incapable of understanding this patently obvious fact that anyone else in the thread realizes simply because they are intelligent enough to have achieved consciousness.
What players who were 40+ were doing as well as the 30 year old players? He had 5 people in his study who hit more than 50 homers after 32. 5.
How many did it before? 14. Nearly three times as many.
How many seasons did players have who hit 40+ homers after 32? 20
Before 32? 112. 5 1/2 times as many
How many season did players have who hit 30+ homers after 32? 62
How many before 32? 322. Again 5 1/2 times as many.
You are without a shadow of a doubt one of the dumbest mother****ers to ever disgrace the surface of this earth.
Please, refute these numbers:
http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/ba...page=age27myth